Talk:Overland Limited (UP train)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: added "(ATSF train)" and converted Overland Limited to disambiguation page per consensus. The "(UP train)" is not primary topic. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Overland Limited (UP train) → Overland Limited
• Overland Limited → Overland Limited (ATSF train)

– The Union Pacific's Overland Limited is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Santa Fe's, for which I'm so far having difficulty finding sources, lasted 1901–1915 and according to Lucius Beebe (Overland Limited, p 136) was named after the UP train. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose first, support second adding (ATSF train) - appears no primary topic, no need to do a sudden flip-flop between two articles when the ATSF train has been occupying the primary slot for a decade. Out of interest, does The Overland Limited (1925 film) mentioned in the Olive Borden bio concern either train? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't appear to reference either, but I'm basing that on an IMDb user comment. Why do you think there's no primary topic? There's a wealth of discussion and writing about the UP train, including an entire book. If you look at Talk:Overland Limited, I'm having trouble substantiating the existence of the ATSF train, which might well be better known by a different name. The UP train existed 1887-1863; the ATSF train lasted maybe fifteen years, but that's uncited. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I just created a stub for The Overland Limited (1925 film) which no, isn't related (though 2 or 3 shorts from 1901/1902 are) and I'm surprised the studio could risk showing a train accident in a film with that name without being sued. In honesty of the two trains it is evident that the UP is by far the more important. It's more an issue of sudden flip-flopping between two titles after a decade of links pointing the other way. People off Wikipedia do link to our titles, so a flip-flop between two competing articles can be unhelpful to them. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The new article looks great! Re breaking links, that's certainly a concern but at what point can we correct what feels like a mistake? Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It now has an infobox, but may be difficult to locate a still or poster. I don't know, 3 months, 6 months, a year? Ultimately links do flip flop and what people reference in docs and pdfs is stuck eternally. In principle the move proposal is a sound one. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose first, support second. We should definitely not flip-flop after the link has been stable for a decade. Putting a disambiguation page as primary for 6-9 months will allow us to get information about pageviews, etc to help determine which, if any, of the topics is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent change

As far as I'm concerned this change by 75.16.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is unacceptable. It adds an entire unsourced section, and rewrites another while removing the cited source. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My source is Lucius Beebe's The Overland Limited, which is probably the standard work on this subject. I invite Tim Zukas to explain on the talk page what's useless about it. I'm not sure what to make of an edit that changes content while removing a cited, published source. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have checked my own copy of Beebe's "The Overland LImited" and find that it fully supports the information it is cited for as does my own 2010 book, "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes". I have no problem with restoring the new "schedule" section but only as long as it is also properly sourced which it has not been so far. Centpacrr (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you has Donner Pass? If you want a source on the train's name, Al Phelps' info there is the standard. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have Donner Pass. What is your specific citation to it? (Comment out of sequence.) Centpacrr (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't, no. Are you planning to actually add it as a source? Removing a source and changing the content is a complete non-starter. A published source which has analysis would be preferred to timetables, especially as timetables can be wrong and don't always tell the full story. In any case no timetables are currently cited. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've expanded the "Names" and "History" sections with additional refs. Also the Phelps listing in John Signor's Donner Pass with regard to the Overland only refers to SP trains (1-2, 27-28) between SF and Ogden running after 1899. Centpacrr (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• While "Overland Route" appeared in UP and SP public timetables as a generic table title after July, 1962, "Overland" did not appear as a train name after that time, only by number. Trains 27 and 28 were shown also only by number (not name) in employee timetables until October, 1963, but they were also annulled by daily train orders. Centpacrr (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Corrections"

I don't want to be difficult, but there's a difference between the correction of an error and a stylistic change. This edit has both. I think it would be a courtesy to indicate, clearly, when an error is being corrected and when prose is simply being rewritten. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The "corrections" being made repeatedly by this user are not corrections at all but mass, unexplained deletions of well sourced material and citations needed to properly understand the complicated history of this train route which was operated by and over the tracks owned by three different railroads over a period of seven decades. The continued removal of this introduces false and/or misleading material that significantly diminishes the article's accuracy and value. Centpacrr (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tim Zukas: If there are errors--and I'm not saying there aren't--then explain what they are. Make an incremental edit and say what's wrong, and explain why. Don't just roll it all in to a massive edit with all your nitpicking stylistic changes. These diffs you generate are impossible to read. Copyediting shouldn't be mixed with error correction. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"false and/or misleading material"-- show what material in my version is false.

When the article says 2 + 2 = 5 and I change it to 2 + 2 = 4 and you change it back to 2 + 2 = 5, you're the one that needs to explain. Maybe your sources are wrong, maybe you're misreading them, but when you tell the reader in the first paragraph the train ran SF to Chicago until 1962 you're showing your sources are weak. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Making massive changes all at once with no explanation is not the way to do that as explained above. If you have changes to propose or facts to challenge, then do them incrementally as pointed out by Mackensen above so that other editors can see what you are doing. Four sources have been provided that TRs27/28 ended its daily runs in 1962. I don't see that you have provided anything to contradict that. Centpacrr (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm frankly baffled by the latest edit by Tim Zukas, which adds quite a bit more than "mileage." Let's get down to brass tacks. Who's claiming the train ran to Chicago until 1962? The original version from August 2014 doesn't make that claim. The version I just reverted to doesn't make that claim: "In 1955 The Overland became strictly an Omaha-Oakland train with no named Chicago connection." Per WP:SUMMARY the lede does not mention every route change which occurred over seven decades, although if you think it's grossly misleading as written then I suppose the sentence "Service east of Omaha ended in 1955" would make it abundantly clear if someone doesn't bother reading the article text. Are there any other "errors" present? Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Who's claiming the train ran to Chicago until 1962?"

The version before my last change (17:54, 20 Feb) said "provided daily service over the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran as a "Limited" train from 1887 to 1947, and then as regular daily service until late 1962."

Yes, there are other errors in your version. But you finally got the 1936 City of SF freq right, so that's progress. CoSF train lengths are wrong, but that's not entirely your fault-- books often do give the wrong length. If you count the cars you'll get that one right (nine cars in 1936, 14 in 1938). Tim Zukas (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• The published source I cited for the dates and car counts on the City of San Francisco is Erle Heath's Seventy-Five Years of Progress: Historical Sketch of the Southern Pacific published by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1945. It states on page 39 in the caption of two images of the train that: "CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO" streamliner left Oakland Pier terminal in two sections on January 2, 1938, when the new ultra-modern 17-car train was inaugurated to supplant the original 11-car train which had been in operation since June 14, 1936, for the SP-UP-C&NW between San Francisco and Chicago. Both trains carried capacity loads of holiday travelers. The original streamliner was assigned to other service after this trip. Above picture shows the 17-car train in the Sierra Nevada mountains. (A second 17-car streamliner was placed on the Overland Route run during July, 1941.). (I have posted a scan of this here.) "If you count the cars you'll get that one right" does not constitute a "reliable source" as you provide no image (or anything else) to support this claim. As Erle Heath's 56-page booklet is a publication of the SP itself (by the "Southern Pacific Bureau of News", 65 Market Street, San Francisco) and is also a compilation of Heath's series of articles previously published by the SP in 1944 in the "Southern Pacific Bulletin", it fully qualifies as a reliable source -- if not the most reliable source -- for this material.

• As for your other issue with the lede, that was already addressed above by Mackensen. (I had, however, also subsequently expand that part of the lede to reflect the change in service made in 1955 already accounted for in the main article.)

• As for the term "point of commencement" of the UP in Council Bluffs, that is not capitalized in President Lincoln's original Executive Order of March 7, 1864, Secretary of Interior Usher's March 8 report to the President of the Senate's resolution relating thereto, and President Lincoln's March 9 Message to the Senate. The only place it is capitalized is in the title I gave to the webpage I created in 2005 on my CPRR history website, CPRR.org, on which I posted verbatim transcriptions of those three documents. Therefore it is neither necssary nor appropriate to capitalize this term in the Overland Limited article. Centpacrr (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"The published source I cited ..."

Guess that's your problem-- you're too easily impressed by your sources. Published by the railroad--how could it be wrong? Well, it isn't, if you count a locomotive as a "car". The 1936 CoSF had two diesel units pulling nine cars, the 1938 train had three E2s pulling 14 cars, and the 1941 train started out with three E6s and 14 cars. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable published source for your claim as that's the way WP works. Despite several requests you have failed to do so far for any of your proposed changes. Frankly, sir, your continued mass deletions of relevant material and sources with no explanation whatsoever and without ever seeking any consensus from the rest of the community to do so has become disruptive and is really completely unhelpful. Centpacrr (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As always, you have it backwards-- the guy who's putting errors into the article is the one who's supposed to explain why he likes errors. Your latest version says "...and then over just the UP/SP grades between Omaha and San Francisco until late 1962." Beebe didn't say that, did he? (No big deal whether he did or not, but maybe he's not to blame for your mistake.)

The details on the City of SF belong in its article. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overland_Limited_(UP_train)&action=edit&section=3

• You can't accuse someone of errors without bringing forth a source of your own. Otherwise it's just original research and it doesn't belong here. These massive once-per-day reverts of yours, with no new sources, don't help anything. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have provided multiple specific citations to reliable published sources (Beebe 1963, Signor 1985, Heath 1945, Cooper 2010, OGR 1938, "Railway Age" 1941, CPRR.org, etc) for all of the additions I have made which is the way WP works. On the other hand user Tim Zukas has provided none at all in disputing them which is NOT the way project works. Since he has not bothered to provide a source for the makeup of the CoSF's consists despite several requests, I did that for him ("Railway Age", Vol. 11 (1941), p. 305) which I had already added to the article. Curiously he promptly deleted that new citation without explanation as well thereby again "getting it backwards". This is not particularly surprising, however, as a review of this user's Talk Page reveals that the making of similar massive unexplained (no edit summary), unsourced, and ultimately disruptive deletions to many other transportation related articles (mostly airports) has been a persistent practice of his since 2010. Centpacrr (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out you're misreading Beebe-- he didn't say anything about when the Overland finally expired. In the next-to-last paragraph he refers to it in the present tense-- it hadn't ended at the time of writing. Signor's book (which says it ran until summer 1963) is the best source on that, aside from the employee timetable which says 1963. Tim Zukas (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See above re difference between employee vs public timetables and its runs annulled by train orders. Signor does not indicate in Donner Pass that TR27 & TR28 ever ran as a year-round "daily train" after 1962. The service details of the CoSF I have added are relevant to this article because they are a key reason that the level and importance of the Overland's services diminished over time after 1936. (At your suggestion I have also now added these details to the CoSF article as well.) As for process, your continued unilateral, unexplained (no or misleading edit summaries) and unsourced mass deletions of material and citations done against WP policy and guidelines are now becoming beyond disruptive for the reasons pointed out above multiple times by both myself and Mackensen. Centpacrr (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be rebutting a claim that no one has ever made. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean everyone's agreed the Overland did run Oakland-Ogden in summer 1963? Might as well let the article say that, then.

Another thing everyone's agreed on: Green River is in Wyoming, so might as well let the article say that too.

By the way: Dubin says the Overland used the Milwaukee Road 1905-1914. Tim Zukas(talk) 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tim Zukas: Not sure who or what "Dubin" is and as your last "correction" didn't add him to article I guess you don't intend to use him as a source. In fact, you've never added a source to this article. Do you plan to add sources to this article or identify specific things which are wrong, or are you just going to keep blindly reverting and evading questions on the talk page? Mackensen (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"identify specific things which are wrong"

So far I assume that correcting the obvious errors is enough identification. Which items are you wondering about? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Again WP editors are required to supply reliable sources to support their changes. So far you have not cited anything. With respect, sir, as you are a frequent user and supporter of the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, I would think you would know the value of footnotes and citations, and why it is important to use them as encyclopedic references. Centpacrr (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've raised this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard because I'm tired of arguing. Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• As user "Zukas" has apparently decided to ignore the dispute resolution process and instead once again massively altered the article without explanation, I have decided to delete all the images, new text, references, sources and citations that I have added over the past several weeks and revert it to the status quo ante rather than waste anymore of my time dealing with a blindly disruptive editor who has no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Issues

I have updated the article based User:Tim Zukas' "concerns". Everything that I have contributed is now very heavily sourced. To avoid further editing disputes, raise and discuss any challenges as to accuracy of material and/or sources in here FIRST. Centpacrr (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As expected, when he says the article is "heavily sourced" he doesn't mean it's correct. The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article. So, lots more work to do. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it that sources should be ignored in favor of unsupported speculation? If an editor believes some cited source is "wrong", then it is incumbent upon that editor to provide something specific to support his or her contention, and do that in talk FIRST. If such an editor is unable to do that, however, then he or she is bound by WP policy and guidelines to just leave the existing material alone as opposed to diminishing or pablumizing the article. I find it continually puzzling that User:Tim Zukas in this (and other) cases has such an aversion to citing sources and seems to treat pejoratively whenever editors contribute material that is "heavily sourced". It is such sourcing, however, that is the very essence of how the entire Wikipedia Project is built to make it reliable. With respect, the kind of "work" this user proposes defeats that basic founding WP principle and thus is both unhelpful and disruptive to achieving the project's goals to be a reliable online encyclopedia.. Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of errors in Centpacrr's latest version, many of them already known. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think there are "errors" then SPECIFY THEM and provide SOURCES that support your claims instead of going right back to your long standing practice (both under your own registered account and multiple anonymous sockpuppet IPs) of edit warring by persistently making mass unexplained deletions of material and sources from aviation and railroad related articles without justifying any of them. Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that this discussion can serve any useful purpose. @Tim Zukas: I'm astonished that you're continuing this pattern of edits after an entire month of off-and-on discussion at DRN. I find that you did so disrespectful and inconsiderate. I'm not sure how you can say there are errors, and then make an edit which removes sources but does not add them. This is exactly what landed us at DRN in the first place and apparently it was fruitless. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This matter is presently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tim_Zukas_and_rail_transport_articles. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to content issue raised in ANI

Thank you for finally providing something specific which can now be addressed.

1) I did not write or contribute the material on the Milwaukee/C&NW which was already in the article long before I made any additions to it. It appears the author based it on the following language in Beebe at page 31: "A baffling aspect of The Overland's diversion or, if you will, apostacy to the Milwaukee during the years 1905 and 1906 was that during this period it still ran a section between Omaha and Chicago over the Chicago & North Western and never disappeared from the North Western's timetable of these years. Whether this was a result of an effort on the part of the Union Pacific to split its business between two connecting carriers or, as seems equally likely, a temporary feint to secure more advantageous relations with the North Western is not available to solution at this remove." While I would probably not have used the word "contends", I'll leave it up to the original author of this portion to address that.

2) It was an error on my part to use the words "through to Chicago" for the Golden Gate Special when it was actually a connection to Chicago (with the C&NW's Trains 1&2) and other eastern points made at the UP's Council Bluffs Transfer (to which is was a through train via Ogden) and I have corrected that. By the way, both the GGC's own brochure and the January, 1889 Official Guide show the west coast terminal to be San Francisco (MP 0), not the Oakland Pier (MP 5) that passengers carried to by SP ferry from San Francisco which is where they checked in when leaving the city, or were delivered to when arriving there.

If you have any other specific "errors" that you think should be addressed (and sources to support your contentions) then please do so here or in talk. The issues with your practice of massive deletions of material and sources without providing any verifiable basis or having achieved consensus to do so, however, remain unaddressed by you. Centpacrr (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)